Lawdog; you DO write that well. Frequently. Not the same way - you have your own style (which is goddamned rare even in people who write for a living) - but as well or sometimes even better.

No reflection on Mr. Williamson; he sometimes writes even better than that, too.

That said, and said LOUDLY, thanks for pointing me at Mr. Williamson's wonderful rant.

Myself?

I will continue to support Gay marriage, legal abortion, and other "Liberal" positions that I agree with I'm principle, because I don't went to be like a Liberal and support things because of who supports them or who opposes them. But I completely understand Mr. Williamson's position. In fact, I think that people who support "Liberal" causes from principal should read Mr. Williamson, and take it to heart.

Or a lot of good causes are going to be poisoned by their association with the loudmouthed, intolerant, knee-jerk Left.

I second CSP Schofield entirely, especially his last line. The Leftoids are a good part of the reason that--while I may be a lbertarian still--I've found myself becomeing a far more conservative one in recent years.

LD, you have a talent for writing I couldn't even imagine possessing. I missed you on your hiatus, and I'm overjoyed you're back in the game.

I would just like to say that"I've twice been reported to Family Services on the grounds that I have guns in the house, which means I'm a danger to my kids (which complaints were laughed at, here in Indiana). "

means that the size of his "meat and 2 veg" seems to be adequate for his Honey.

LD, you write funny much better than MadMike. Yes, I have read most of his books (and own a copy of most, too). He occasionally sneaks a snarky joke in there (like the mall-ninja in Do unto others...), but you're funnier to read on a regular basis!

Is his point that you can't have issues in common with the other side because many on the other side don't share issues with you? What about Blue Dog Democrats? Pro life, pro big government people are called Neo Cons.

Is he really saying we need to be MORE partisan? That we should only support those who will support back (on this issue)?

Overload, I believe his point was that he was quite supportive of various liberal causes and his reward for it was the metric ton of verbal abuse from liberals because he has the audacity to own guns and believe in the Second Amendment. He was venting on some rather ungrateful individuals and doing so rather well.

I understand what he's saying. It's a reverse variation of the "they came for the..." argument. He's asking why when he supported them, they're not supporting him. What I was trying to say is that while he helped them, with the expectation of reciprocal aid, that they never offered it in return.I just believe that his premise is flawed. They never will aid him as they're on the other side. They don't expect his aid either, but usually don't refuse it when offered. The logical extension is he should support those who will support him, and not support those who won't support him.

Looking at the animated map of the US showing states CCW legalization by year, you'd think that the US was pro-gun. The country had stayed the course after other mass killings, but just like in the UK, it was a killing of children which seems to have caused a shift. I don't believer there's been a shift, more a misinformation campaign and others who laid low showing their true colors. When Rep McCarthy would propose a assault weapon ban every year in congress, it went nowhere.

I finally figured out what this reminds me of as I was reading a story about McCain: When McCain was running in the Primary in 2008 he was the media darling. However, when the general election started they dropped him like a hot potato and flocked to Obama.